Re: hplip: hp-toolbox advertising?

From: Bernard Johnson <bjohnson-dated-1172832473 ba5e95 symetrix com>

To: fedora-devel-list redhat com

Subject: Re: hplip: hp-toolbox advertising?

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 23:02:06 -0600

Matthias Clasen wrote:
> The packaging committee is not the sole ruler of all things in Fedora,
> and the packaging guidelines are just a tool that has its limits. If
> something in the packaging guidelines does not make sense for one of my
> packages, I will take the freedom to deviate from the guidelines.
It's clear that you intend to do nothing regarding the "right thing", so
this will be my last comment. I don't have the ability to make the
change, only comments and recommendations, which I've put forth.
I did not realize it was your package, I thought it was Tim's.
Regardless, the packaging committee has approved the packaging
guidelines with the goal of improving overall packaging.
You have chosen to ignore the guidelines [1], without any good
/consistent/ reason AFAICS. And I have pointed out several different
places where other packages are not treated the equally, which you have
also ignored.
Fine. But, now it's expected that Fedora packagers apply the guidelines
to themselves while ignoring the fact that you are giving yourself
special treatment for no particularly good reason.[2] Welcome to
hypocrisy and good luck with it.
Are you afraid that the packaging committee might disagree with you if
you asked if your package /should/ be granted an exception regarding
menu entry?
Tell you what, I'll do you one even better, let's both write a paragraph
(no more than 100 words) each and put it in front of the committee for
an opinion of what /should/ be done with this particular package (not
what could be done). If they agree that your actions are warranted, by
a majority (not regarding what you can do, but what you should do), I'll
donate $250 to your favorite free software project. Interested? Email me.
[1] And technically, your package does not violate the guidelines, as
the guidelines only require that the .desktop file be properly
installed, which it is (except for the Category issue I brought up to
Tim). I think most would agree that installing it but not displaying it
violates the intent of the guideline though.
[2] Certainly not the first disagreement from core packages vs.
packaging requirements. Although all the other arguments I've see the
packagers had a compelling reason.